Civ Pro Digest Week 12 B
Civ Pro Digest Week 12 B
Civ Pro Digest Week 12 B
In said motion, Nolasco is askig the RTC to order DPWH to award the bid to
FACTS: CHINA, instead of DAEWOO.
The root of the dispute is a public works project, the Agno River Flood Control
Project (Project), the undertaking of which has been unfortunately delayed due ISSUE/S:
to the present petition. WON the RTC erred in its September 6, 2002 decision with regard to Nolascos
Motion to Issue Partial Judgment and Motion to Dismiss Petition.
A Bid and Awards Committee (BAC) was constituted by the Department of Public
Works and Highways (DPWH) for the purpose of conducting international WON the mere opinion (that the DPWH should consider awarding China for the
competitive bidding for the procurement of the contract for Package IIthe Guide project) of the RTC judge has binding effect.
Channel to Bayambang under Phase II of the Project.
WON Sec. 5 Rule 36 (separate judgments) may be applied with regard to the reliefs
Six (6) pre-qualified contractors submitted their bids for the project, among them sought by Nolasco.
the present intervenors Daewoo Engineering and Construction Co., Ltd.
(Daewoo), and China International Water and Electric Corp. (China International). HELD:
NO. The RTC did not err in its ruling with regard to the said motion.
However, even before the BAC could come out with its recommendations, a legal NO. It does not have a binding effect.
challenge had already been posed to preempt the awarding of the contract to NO. Separate Judgments is not applicable.
Daewoo.
RATIO:
On 19 February 2002, Emiliano R. Nolasco, a self-identified taxpayer and
newspaper publisher/editor-in-chief, filed a Petition, seeking a temporary Nolascos petition had been correctly dismissed by the RTC on two grounds: that
restraining order and/or preliminary injunction, with the RTC of Manila, naming Nolascos general interest as a taxpayer was not sufficient to establish any direct
the DPWH and the members of the BAC as respondents. He alleged having injury to him should the Project be awarded to Daewoo; and that the petition was
obtained copies of Confidential Reports from an Unnamed DPWH Consultant, a suit against the State, which may not prosper without its consent.
which he attached to his petition. Nolasco argued that based on the confidential
reports it was apparent that Daewoos bid was unacceptable and the putative The dispositive portion of the assailed Order correctly limited itself to the denial of
award to Daewoo, illegal, immoral, and prejudicial to the government and the Nolascos motion for reconsideration without allowing any other relief that
Filipino taxpayers. Invoking his right as a taxpayer, Nolasco prayed that the Nolasco prayed for in his Motion for Partial Judgment and to Dismiss Petition.
DPWH and BAC be restrained from awarding the contract to Daewoo and
Daewoo disqualified as a bidder. Had the respondent judge instead opted to grant partial judgment and direct the
award of the Project to China International, the Court would not hesitate to strike
The RTC issued a TRO for a period of 20 days. down such award. Yet the respondent judge did not act so unequivocally, and
merely advised that the DPWH Secretary should consider such an option.
Upon learning of the TRO, the DPWH and the BAC, through the Office of the o Sec. 5. Separate judgments. When more than one claim for
Solicitor General (OSG), filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition with Motion for relief is presented in an action, the court, at any stage, upon a
Dissolution of Temporary Restraining Order. While noting the impropriety of a determination of the issues material to a particular claim and
twenty (20)-day TRO without prior notice or hearing, they pointed out that all counterclaims arising out of the transaction or occurrence
Republic Act No. 8975 precisely prohibited the issuance by any court, save the which is the subject matter of the claim, may render a separate
Supreme Court, of a TRO or preliminary injunction which restrains or prohibits judgment disposing of such claim. The judgment shall
the bidding for or awarding of a contract/project of the national government. terminate the action with respect to the claim so disposed of
Accordingly, they prayed that the petition be dismissed and the TRO dissolved. and the action shall proceed as to the remaining claims. . . .
This new motion was set for hearing on 21 March 2002, and thereupon the On paper, Nolascos petition prays for two reliefs, that the petitioner be restrained
from awarding the Project to Daewoo, and that Daewoo be disqualified as a
parties were afforded the opportunity to argue their case. Then, on 27 March
2002, the RTC issued an order dismissing Nolascos petition. The RTC held that bidder and its bid be rejected. Yet these reliefs are obviously intertwined for the
allowance of one would necessarily lead to the grant of the other. The multiple
it was a suit against the government without its consent. RTC judge, realizing his
mistake, recalled the said TRO in accordance with RA No. 8975. reliefs referred to in the provision refer to those sufficiently segregate from each
other that the allowance of one at a preliminary stage will not preclude litigation
on the merits of the others.
More importantly, the rule is explicit that partial judgment with regards one of the
reliefs is warranted only after a determination of the issues material to a
particular claim and all counterclaims arising out of the transaction or occurrence
which is the subject matter of the claim.
Herein, the partial judgment was sought even before the respondents had the
chance to file their answer to the petition. Moreover, it was prayed for at a point
when, at even such a preliminary stage, the claimant was actually somehow able
to already present evidence in support of his claim, but before the respondents
had the chance to rebut this claim or support countervailing evidence.
While the allowance of partial judgments may expedite the litigation of claims, it
cannot be sanctioned at a stage when the trial judge has not had the opportunity
to hear all sides to the claim. In fact, it was highly imprudent for the respondent
judge to have concluded, as he did in his Order, that it was an admitted fact that
the BAC had strayed from fairly applying the Bidding Laws, Guidelines, Rules,
and Regulations, and Bid Tender Documents, considering that the Petitioner had
not even filed an answer or been allowed the opportunity to present any evidence
on its behalf.
4. Briones-Vasquez v CA GR 144882 february 4, 2005 Petitioner BRIONES-VASQUEZ filed a MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
which was denied by the RTC in an Order dated February 23, 2000.
NATURE
Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, assailing the Petitioner BRIONES-VASQUEZ then filed a MOTION FOR CLARIFICATORY
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 39025, dated June 9, 2000, JUDGMENT, dated April 5, 2000, with the Court of Appeals. The motion was
which denied petitioners motion for clarificatory judgment and the Resolution of the denied in a Resolution, dated June 9, 2000 since to the mind of the court there
Court of Appeals, dated August 3, 2000, which denied the motion for reconsideration. was nothing more to clarify.
o It may be used to make the record speak the truth, but not to make
it speak what it did not speak but ought to have spoken. If the court
has not rendered a judgment that it might or should have rendered,
or if it has rendered an imperfect or improper judgment, it has no
power to remedy these errors or omissions by ordering the entry
nunc pro tunc of a proper judgment. (15 R. C. L., pp. 622-623.)
WILMERDING VS. CORBIN BANKING CO., 28 SOUTH., 640, 641; 126 ALA.,
268:
o The object of a judgment nunc pro tunc is NOT THE RENDERING
OF A NEW JUDGMENT AND THE ASCERTAINMENT AND
DETERMINATION OF NEW RIGHTS, BUT IS ONE PLACING IN
PROPER FORM ON THE RECORD, THE JUDGMENT THAT HAD
BEEN PREVIOUSLY RENDERED, TO MAKE IT SPEAK THE
TRUTH, so as to make it show what the judicial action really was,
not to correct judicial errors, such as to render a judgment which
the court ought to have rendered, in place of the one it did
erroneously render, nor to supply nonaction by the court, however
erroneous the judgment may have been.
PERKINS VS. HAYWOOD, 31 N. E., 670, 672.A nunc pro tunc entry in practice is
an entry made now of something which was actually previously done, to have
effect as of the former date. Its office is not to supply omitted action by the court,
BUT TO SUPPLY AN OMISSION IN THE RECORD OF ACTION REALLY HAD,
BUT OMITTED THROUGH INADVERTENCE OR MISTAKE.
From the above characterization of a nunc pro tunc judgment it is clear that the
judgment Petitioner BRIONES-VASQUEZ sought through the motion for
clarificatory judgment is outside its scope. Petitioners did not allege that the
Court of Appeals actually took judicial action and that such action was not
included in the Court of Appeals Decision by inadvertence. A nunc pro tunc
judgment cannot correct judicial error nor supply nonaction by the court.
Clarita brought before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch RATIO:
256 an action for the declaration of nullity of the real estate mortgage and the
Because the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 55780 ordering
foreclosure sale.
the dismissal of Civil Case No. 99-177 had already become final, then the same
o Clarita alleged that the properties involved belonged to her and should bar the filing of Civil Case No. 02-079 inasmuch as the two cases raised
Antonios conjugal partnership property as the same were acquired identical causes of action and issues and prayed for the same relief.
during their marriage and that Antonio, with the connivance of a certain
While the Court agrees that an action to declare the nullity of contracts is not
Belen G. Belen, had secured the registration thereof in their names
barred by the statute of limitations, the fact that Clarita was barred by laches from
without her knowledge.
bringing such action at the first instance has already been settled by the Court of
She pointed out that Antonio and Belen then mortgaged the properties to MBTC Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 55780.
in 1993 likewise without her knowledge. She ascribed fault and negligence to o At this point in the proceedings, the Court can no longer rule on the applicability
MBTC because it failed to consider that the properties given to it as security of the principle of laches vis--vis the imprescriptibility of Claritas cause of action
belonged to her and Antonios conjugal partnership property. because the said decision is not the one on appeal before us.
MBTC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground, inter alia, of laches. o But more importantly, the Court takes notice that the decision rendered in that
With the denial of its motion, MBTC filed a petition for certiorari before the Court case had already become final without any motion for reconsideration being filed
of Appeals. CA ruled in favor or Metrobank. The decision had attained finality or an appeal being taken therefrom. Thus, we are left with no other recourse
without a motion for reconsideration being filed or an appeal being taken than to uphold the immutability of the said decision.
therefrom. No other procedural law principle is indeed more settled than that once a judgment
becomes final, it is no longer subject to change, revision, amendment or reversal, except
Subsequently, on April 17, 2002, Clarita instituted another action also before the only for correction of clerical errors, or the making of nunc pro tunc entries which cause no
RTC of Muntinlupa City, Branch 256 but this time for the declaration of nullity of prejudice to any party, or where the judgment itself is void. The underlying reason for the
the TCTs covering the same properties and for reconveyance and damages. rule is two-fold:
o The complaint was docketed as Civil Case No. 02-079 and it impleaded 1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus make orderly the
Antonio, Belen, MBTC and the Registers of Deeds of Makati City discharge of judicial business, and
and Muntinlupa City as defendants. 2) to put judicial controversies to an end, at the risk of occasional errors, inasmuch
as controversies cannot be allowed to drag on indefinitely and the rights and
MBTC moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it was already barred
obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of
by the prior judgment in Civil Case No. 99-177, and that Claritas claim had time.
already been waived, abandoned and extinguished.
It needs no elucidation that the solemn and deliberate sentence of the law, pronounced by
its appointed organs, should be regarded as a final and conclusive determination of the
question litigated, and should forever set the controversy at rest.
Public policy and sound practice demand that, at the risk of occasional errors, judgments of
courts should become final at some definite time fixed by law. For, after all, the very object
for which courts were constituted was to put an end to controversies.